California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Expansion v. Cnty. of Marin, A137459 (Cal. App. 2014):
As we have stressed, it is not the role of a reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency when reviewing the record for substantial evidence to support the methodology used for studying a potential impact. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 642-643.) " 'The fact that different inferences or conclusions could be drawn, or that different methods of gathering and compiling statistics could have been employed, is not determinative in a substantial evidence review.' [Citation.] The issue is not whether other methods might have been used, but whether the agency relied on evidence that a ' "reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support the conclusion reached" ' in the EIR." (Id. at p. 642.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.